Doe v. Indus Investments CA2/4

Filed 8/23/24 Doe v. Indus Investments CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

JOHN DOE, B331252

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STCV04190) v.

INDUS INVESTMENTS, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne Richardson, Judge. Affirmed. Timothy D. McGonigle; Greenberg Traurig and Scott D. Bertzyk for Defendants and Appellants. Shirazi Law Firm and Emanuel S. Shirazi for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Plaintiff John Doe was employed by defendants Indus Investments, Inc. (Indus), Tehmina Adaya (Adaya), and Royal Lush, LLC (Rush). Indus and Adaya initiated arbitration against plaintiff for alleged tortious conduct. In turn, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against all defendants, asserting sexual harassment, retaliation, and wage and hour claims. The trial court subsequently denied defendants’ petition to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims, in part, because the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (9 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.; the Act) prohibits arbitration of plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims. Defendants challenge this ruling on appeal. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2017, plaintiff began working for defendants. In February 2018, plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement that covered all employment- related disputes. Plaintiff was terminated on June 3, 2022. On June 27, 2022, Indus and Adaya filed a demand for arbitration with JAMS pursuant to the arbitration agreement. Defendants asserted five claims against plaintiff: breach of written agreement; invasion of privacy; civil remedies for violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; civil remedies for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff participated in the arbitration by filing an answer. In his answer, plaintiff generally denied all the allegations, asserted multiple affirmative defenses and alleged defendants initiated the arbitration “in retaliation for [his] sexual harassment, retaliation/wrongful termination, and wage and hour claims made.” Plaintiff further alleged the “sexual harassment claims are not subject to Arbitration pursuant to federal law” and he would be filing a